EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA) addresses a number of issues related to aeroplane performance
requirements for commercial air transport (CAT) operations.
In particular, the NPA addresses two safety recommendations (SRs), and it is linked with Actions 3.7.1, 3.7.2 and 3.7.3 of
the European Action Plan for the Prevention of Runway Excursions (EAPPRE).
It also provides for alignment with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) State Letters 2016/12 and
2016/29.
The NPA proposes standards for runway surface condition reporting, airworthiness standards for landing performance
computation at time of arrival, an in-flight assessment of landing performance at time of arrival as well as a reduced
required landing distance for business aviation operations with performance class A aeroplanes and for performance
class B aeroplane operations.
The proposed changes are expected to increase the current level of safety in relation to aeroplane performance, to
improve harmonisation with the corresponding Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) rules, to ensure alignment with
(ICAO), and to allow for flexibility and proportionality for certain CAT operations.
Table of contents
1. Procedural information .................................................................................................................................................... 3
1.1. The rule development procedure ........................................................................................................................... 3
1.2. The structure of this NPA and related documents .................................................................................................. 3
1.3. How to comment on this NPA ................................................................................................................................. 3
1.4. The next steps in the procedure ............................................................................................................................. 3
2. Explanatory Note .............................................................................................................................................................. 5
2.1. Overview of the issues to be addressed ................................................................................................................. 5
2.2. Objectives ................................................................................................................................................................ 5
2.3. Summary of the RIA ................................................................................................................................................ 5
2.4. Overview of the proposed amendments ................................................................................................................ 8
2.4.1. Annex I (Definitions) to the Air OPS Regulation ............................................................................................. 8
2.4.2. Annex II (Part-ARO) to the Air OPS Regulation ............................................................................................... 9
2.4.3. Annex III (Part-ORO) to the Air OPS Regulation ............................................................................................. 9
2.4.4. Annex IV (Part-CAT) to the Air OPS Regulation .............................................................................................. 9
2.4.5. CS-25 ............................................................................................................................................................. 17
3. Proposed amendments................................................................................................................................................... 19
3.1. Draft Regulation (draft EASA Opinion) .................................................................................................................. 19
3.1.1. Definitions .................................................................................................................................................... 19
3.1.2. Part-ARO ....................................................................................................................................................... 21
3.1.3. Part-CAT ........................................................................................................................................................ 21
3.2. Draft CSs (draft EASA Decision) ............................................................................................................................. 31
3.2.1. CS-25 Book 1 ................................................................................................................................................. 31
3.2.2. CS-25 Book 2 ................................................................................................................................................. 32
3.3. Draft AMC/GM (draft EASA Decision) ................................................................................................................... 49
3.3.1. Definitions .................................................................................................................................................... 49
3.3.2. Part-ORO....................................................................................................................................................... 50
3.3.3. Part-CAT ........................................................................................................................................................ 51
4. RIA ................................................................................................................................................................................... 68
4.1. Issues to be addressed .......................................................................................................................................... 68
4.1.1. Safety risk assessment .................................................................................................................................. 72
4.1.2. Who is affected? ........................................................................................................................................... 76
4.1.3. How could the issue/problem evolve? ......................................................................................................... 77
4.2. Objectives .............................................................................................................................................................. 77
4.3. Policy options ........................................................................................................................................................ 77
4.4. Methodology and data (only for a full RIA) ........................................................................................................... 79
4.4.1. Applied methodology ................................................................................................................................... 79
4.4.2. Data collection .............................................................................................................................................. 79
4.5. Analysis of impacts ................................................................................................................................................ 81
4.5.1. Safety impact ................................................................................................................................................ 81
4.5.2. Environmental impact .................................................................................................................................. 88
4.5.3. Social impact ................................................................................................................................................. 89
4.5.4. Economic impact .......................................................................................................................................... 90
4.5.5. General aviation and proportionality issues................................................................................................. 91
4.5.6. Impact on better regulation and harmonisation ........................................................................................ 92
4.6. Comparison and conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 93
4.6.1. Comparison of options ................................................................................................................................. 93
4.6.2. Monitoring and ex post evaluation .............................................................................................................. 93
5. References ...................................................................................................................................................................... 94
5.1. Affected regulations .............................................................................................................................................. 94
5.2. Affected CS, AMC and GM..................................................................................................................................... 94
5.3. Reference documents ........................................................................................................................................... 94
6. Appendices ..................................................................................................................................................................... 96
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 2 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
1. Procedural information
1. Procedural information
1.1. The rule development procedure
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) developed this NPA in line with Regulation (EC)
No 216/20081 (the EASA Basic Regulation) and the Rulemaking Procedure2.
This rulemaking activity is included in the EASA 5-year Rulemaking Programme under RMT.0296
(former task number: OPS.008(A)).
The text of this NPA has been developed by EASA based on the input of RMG RMT.0296 (OPS.008(A)).
It is hereby submitted to all interested parties3 for consultation.
The process map on the title page contains the major milestones of this rulemaking activity to date and
provides an outlook of the timescales of the next steps.
1
Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 on common rules in the field of
civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency, and repealing Council Directive 91/670/EEC, Regulation (EC)
No 1592/2002 and Directive 2004/36/EC (OJ L 79, 19.3.2008, p. 1).
2
EASA is bound to follow a structured rulemaking process as required by Article 52(1) of the Basic Regulation. Such process has been
adopted by the EASA Management Board (MB) and is referred to as the Rulemaking Procedure. See MB Decision No 18-2015 of
15 December 2015 replacing Decision 01/2012 concerning the procedure to be applied by the Agency for the issuing of opinions,
certification specifications and guidance material.
3
In accordance with Article 52 of the Basic Regulation and Articles 6(3) and 7 of the Rulemaking Procedure.
4
In case of technical problems, please contact the CRT webmaster (crt@easa.europa.eu).
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 3 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
1. Procedural information
The Opinion contains proposed changes to European Union (EU) regulations (implementing rules (IRs))
and is submitted to the European Commission to be used as a technical basis in order to prepare a
legislative proposal.
The Decision(s) containing certification specifications (CS), acceptable means of compliance (AMC) and
guidance material (GM) will be published by EASA when the related IRs are adopted by the European
Commission.
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 4 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
2. Explanatory Note
2. Explanatory Note
2.1. Overview of the issues to be addressed
The main issues this NPA addresses are the following:
standards for runway surface condition assessment and reporting;
airworthiness standards for landing performance computation at time of arrival;
in-flight assessment of landing performance at time of arrival;
crosswind limitations;
reduced required landing distance for business aviation operations with performance class A
aeroplanes and for performance class B aeroplane operations; and
miscellaneous amendments to improve technical accuracy, clarity and consistency.
The reasons for addressing these issues are essentially the implementation of amendments to ICAO
Annex 6, Part I, and to ICAO Annex 8, certain SRs addressed to EASA, harmonisation with the FAA,
proportionality, technical improvements and clarifications of the rules on aeroplane performance.
For a more detailed analysis of the issues addressed by this proposal, please refer to the RIA
Section 4.1. Issues to be addressed.
2.2. Objectives
The overall objectives of the EASA system are defined in Article 2 of the Basic Regulation. This proposal
will contribute to the achievement of the overall objectives by addressing the issues outlined in
Chapter 2 of this NPA.
The general objective of this proposal is to maintain a uniform and high level of safety with cost-
efficient rules.
The specific objectives of this proposal are to:
reduce the number of accidents and serious incidents where aeroplane performance is a causal
factor;
provide improved clarity, technical accuracy, flexibility or a combination of these benefits for the
EU operational requirements on aeroplane performance for CAT operations; and
contribute to the harmonisation of FAA and EU operational requirements on aeroplane
performance for CAT operations.
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 5 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
2. Explanatory Note
implementation of ICAO amendments (which includes standards for runway surface condition
assessment and reporting, airworthiness standards for landing performance computation at
time of arrival, and in-flight assessment of landing performance at time of arrival); and
reduced required landing distance for performance class A and B aeroplane operations,
which have different starting points and drivers, have been considered under two separate RIAs.
Reduced required landing distance for performance class A and B aeroplane operations
Along with the baseline option (Option 0 No changes), another option was considered:
introduce the possibility of using a landing factor of 80 % of the landing distance available (LDA)
for performance class A and B aeroplanes under defined conditions and with the approval of the
competent authority (CA).
The impacts of the two options are analysed in detail in Chapter 4 below. Option 1 has been selected
as the most appropriate one because while it maintains the same level of safety as with the current
rules, it is expected to achieve the following additional benefits:
to have a medium positive social impact;
to have a medium positive economic impact;
to render EU rules more proportionate; and
to achieve a higher degree of harmonisation between EU and US rules.
EAPPRE, Ref. 3.7.1 Establish and implement one consistent method of contaminated runway
surface condition assessment and reporting by the aerodrome operator for
use by aircraft operators. Ensure the relation of this report to aircraft
performance as published by aircraft manufacturers.
EASA reply The SR has been agreed and addressed through the changes of:
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 6 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
2. Explanatory Note
EAPPRE Ref. 3.7.2 Establish and implement one consistent method of calculation of crosswind
limits for use by aircraft manufacturers and aircraft operators.
EAPPRE Ref. 3.7.3 It is recommended that aircraft operators always conduct an in-flight
assessment of the landing performance prior to landing. Note: Apply an
appropriate margin to the results.
EASA reply The SR has been agreed and addressed through the proposed new
requirement of CAT.OP.MPA.303 for in-flight check of the landing distance
at the time of arrival.
SR UNKG-2008-076 The European Aviation Safety Agency should require operators to ensure that
flight crews are provided with guidance material on aircraft performance
when operating on a runway that is notified as may be slippery when wet,
or has sections thereof notified as may be slippery when wet.
EASA reply The SR has been agreed and addressed through the proposed amendments
of:
Annex I (Definitions) to Regulation (EU) No 965/20125 (hereinafter
referred to as the Air OPS Regulation) on the runway surface
condition and contaminant descriptors;
5
Commission Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 of 5 October 2012 laying down technical requirements and administrative procedures
related to air operations pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 296,
25.10.2012, p. 1).
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 7 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
2. Explanatory Note
SR NORW-2011-011 The Accident Investigation Board Norway (AIBN) recommends that FAA,
EASA and the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) Norway evaluate the airlines
crosswind limits in relation to friction values and consider whether they
should be subject to separate approval by the authorities.
EASA reply The SR has been accepted and the following assessment has been done:
Operational crosswind limits are either based on manufacturers
approved data or on manufacturers advisory data provided in other
documents; thus, an additional approval by the CA is not considered
necessary.
Guidance to operators is necessary on how to use the information
available from manufacturers to establish operational crosswind limits
in the operations manual (OM) and to relate such limits to the runway
surface conditions.
The SR has been then addressed by the proposed amendments of:
GM1 ORO.MLR.100 Operations manual general
CROSSWIND LIMITATIONS IN THE OPERATIONS MANUAL.
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 8 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
2. Explanatory Note
Appendix II
Note 20 to the OPERATIONS SPECIFICATIONS form (EASA FORM 139, Issue 1) is amended to include
under the listed items the approval for reduced required landing distance operations to be consistent
with the proposed new rules CAT.POL.A.255 and CAT.POL.A.355 regulating such operations.
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 9 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
2. Explanatory Note
CAT.OP.MPA.303 In-flight check of the landing distance at the time of arrival aeroplanes
A new requirement is proposed for an in-flight check of the landing distance at the time of arrival in
accordance with ICAO Annex 6 and the Takeoff and Landing Performance Assessment Aviation
Rulemaking Committee (TALPA ARC) recommendations.
A different approach is taken for various categories of aeroplanes as follows:
performance class A aeroplanes:
the TALPA ARC recommendations require the application of a 15% factor to the landing distance
determined in accordance with performance data for the landing distance at the time of arrival.
performance class B aeroplanes:
in consideration of the fact that in many cases, data from the manufacturer may not be available
for this category of aeroplanes as no relevant airworthiness standards may exist, the proposed
new rule allows, as a minimum, to ensure that the landing distance calculated at the time of
landing, based on the actual conditions, is at least in accordance with the criteria applicable at
dispatch; and
performance class C aeroplanes:
in consideration of the fact that in many cases, data from the manufacturer may not be available
for this category of aeroplanes as no relevant airworthiness standards may exist, the proposed
new rule allows, as a minimum, to ensure that the landing distance calculated at the time of
landing, based on the actual conditions, is at least in accordance with the criteria applicable at
dispatch.
AMC1 CAT.OP.MPA.303(a);(b)(1);(c)(1) In-flight check of the landing distance at the time of arrival
aeroplanes
A new AMC is proposed, based on the FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 25-32, for the use of corrective
factors for the in-flight check of the landing distance at the time of arrival when no manufacturers
data are provided in the AFM for performance class A aeroplanes.
GM1 CAT.OP.MPA.303 In-flight check of the landing distance at the time of arrival aeroplanes
Guidance is proposed mainly to explain the following:
when during the approach, the in-flight check of the landing distance should be performed;
what information should be considered;
the autobrake usage; and
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 10 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
2. Explanatory Note
when the assessment may be limited only to confirmation of the dispatch calculation.
CAT.POL.A.105 General
Paragraph (d) on damp runways is deleted for consistency with the changes introduced in the
definitions, and the following (e) is renumbered as (d) accordingly.
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 11 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
2. Explanatory Note
CAT.POL.A.200 General
A new paragraph is proposed for performance data necessary for the landing distance assessment at
the time of arrival.
CAT.POL.A.220 En-route aeroplanes with three or more engines, two engines inoperative
Further to the proposal of the JAA NPA-OPS 47, the following changes are introduced:
the use of long range cruising speed is replaced with cruising power, thus harmonising with
the corresponding Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) 121 requirement. This change would allow
more flexibility to operators who would be able to substantiate the use of a speed other than
the long-range cruising speed to comply with the rule; and
text clarifications are introduced and rule references added; it should be noted that the
reference to CAT.POL.A.235 is restricted to wet runways only compared to the JAA proposal.
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 12 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
2. Explanatory Note
It is, however, considered that alleviation for alternates is necessary for operations on contaminated
runways; in this regard, a proposal is made.
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 13 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
2. Explanatory Note
20
compared to Unfactored
%
0
TOA Good/Wet
-10
-20
-40
These differences for certain aeroplane types may lead to the situation where the Wet LD for reduced
required landing distance operations is systematically shorter of the one calculated in-flight due to the
use of the 80 % landing factor.
To avoid this situation, a requirement is proposed to compare at the time of dispatch the Wet LD with
the distance calculated in accordance with CAT.OP.MPA.303, and use the longer of the two.
Notwithstanding the above reasoning, the requirement of CAT.OP.MPA.303 to check again the landing
distance in-flight against the latest information available at the time of arrival remains valid.
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 14 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
2. Explanatory Note
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 15 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
2. Explanatory Note
AMC1 CAT.POL.A.355(b)(4) and (b)(5) Approval of reduced required landing distance operations
An AMC is proposed on experience, training, and recency of the flight crew.
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 16 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
2. Explanatory Note
CAT.POL.A.420 En-route aeroplanes with three or more engines, two engines inoperative
The changes introduced in CAT.POL.A.215 and CAT.POL.A.220 in accordance with JAA NPA-OPS 47 are
also introduced here for consistency, as applicable to performance class C aeroplanes.
2.4.5. CS-25
CS 25.1591
The applicability of this provision is restricted to take-off performance information only as a new
standard is introduced for landing performance information.
AMC 25.1591
Information and explanatory material is amended in accordance with the TALPA ARC
recommendations and FAA AC 25-31, taking into account ICAO standards for runway condition codes
and contaminant descriptors. Definitions and terminology used throughout the entire text are
amended accordingly.
Information related to landing is deleted and moved, appropriately amended, to new AMC 25.1592.
In addition to the main changes, further improvements or clarifications are the following:
Paragraph 7.1 Contaminant Drag Standing Water, Slush, Wet Snow is updated to provide for
the option of using 100 % of drag accountability during acceleration, as an alternative to
demonstration of conservatism considering 50 % for the entire accelerate and stop distance
(ASD);
Paragraph 7.3.4 is added to provide limitations on upgrades for specially prepared winter
runway surfaces in accordance with ICAO; and
In paragraph 8.3, references to other CS-25 provisions are added, as well as a clarification on
crosswind.
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 17 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
2. Explanatory Note
CS 25.1592
A new standard is introduced for landing performance information, including performance data for the
time of arrival, in accordance with ICAO Annex 8.
AMC 25.1592
Information and explanatory material is amended in accordance with the TALPA ARC
recommendations and FAA AC 25-32, taking into account ICAO standards for runway condition codes
and contaminant descriptors. ICAO definitions and terminology are introduced accordingly throughout
the entire text.
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 18 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
3. Proposed amendments
3. Proposed amendments
The text of the amendment is arranged to show deleted text, new or amended text as shown below:
(a) deleted text is marked with strike through;
(b) new or amended text is highlighted in grey;
(c) an ellipsis () indicates that the rest of the text is unchanged.
3.1.1. Definitions
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 19 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
3. Proposed amendments
(103b) Runway condition code (RWYCC) means a number describing the runway surface condition to
be used in the runway condition report.
Note: the purpose of the runway condition code is to permit an operational aeroplane
performance calculation by the flight crew.
(103c)Runway condition report (RCR) means a comprehensive standardised report relating to runway
surface conditions and their effect on the aeroplane landing and take-off performance.
(103d) Runway surface condition(s) means a description of the condition(s) of the runway surface
used in the runway condition report which establishes the basis for the determination of the
runway condition code for aeroplane performance purposes.
Note 1: the runway surface conditions used in the runway condition report establish the
performance requirements among the aerodrome operator, aeroplane manufacturer and
aeroplane operator.
Note 2: aircraft de-icing chemicals and other contaminants are also reported but are not
included in the list of runway surface condition descriptors because their effect on runway
surface friction characteristics and the runway condition code cannot be evaluated in a
standardised manner.
(103e) Runway surface condition descriptors means one of the following elements on the surface of
the runway (note: the descriptions under (a) to (h) below are used solely in the context of the
runway condition report and are not intended to supersede or replace any existing World
Meteorological Organization (WMO) definitions):
(a) Compacted snow: snow that has been compacted into a solid mass such that aeroplane
tires, at operating pressures and loadings, will run on the surface without significant
further compaction or rutting of the surface.
(b) Dry snow: snow from which a snowball cannot readily be made.
(c) Frost: ice crystals formed from airborne moisture on a surface whose temperature is
below freezing; frost differs from ice in that the frost crystals grow independently and,
therefore, have a more granular texture.
Note 1: below freezing refers to air temperature equal to or lower than the freezing point
of water (0 C).
Note 2: under certain conditions, frost can cause the surface to become very slippery, and
it is then reported appropriately as reduced braking action.
(d) Ice: water that has frozen or compacted snow that has transitioned into ice, in cold and
dry conditions.
(e) Slush: snow that is so water-saturated that water will drain from it when a handful is
picked up or will splatter if stepped on forcefully.
(f) Standing water: water of depth greater than 3 mm.
Note: running water of depth greater than 3 mm is reported as standing water by
convention.
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 20 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
3. Proposed amendments
(g) Wet ice: ice with water on top of it or ice that is melting.
Note: freezing precipitation can lead to runway conditions associated with wet ice from an
aeroplane performance point of view. Wet ice can cause the surface to become very
slippery. It is then reported appropriately as reduced braking action.
(h) Wet snow: snow that contains enough water to be able to make a well-compacted, solid
snowball, but water will not squeeze out.
()
(107a) Slippery wet runway means a wet runway where the surface friction characteristics of a
significant portion of the runway have been determined to be degraded
()
(128) Wet runway means a runway of which the surface is covered with water, or equivalent, less
than specified by the contaminated runway definition or when there is sufficient moisture on
the runway surface to cause it to appear reflective, but without significant areas of standing
waterwhose surface is covered by any visible dampness or water up to and including 3 mm deep
within the intended area of use.
3.1.2. Part-ARO
APPENDIX II
()
20. Other approvals or data can be entered here, using one line (or one multi-line block) per
authorisation (e.g. short landing operations, steep approach operations, reduced required
landing distance operations, helicopter operations to/from a public interest site, helicopter
operations over a hostile environment located outside a congested area, helicopter operations
without a safe forced landing capability, operations with increased bank angles, maximum
distance from an adequate aerodrome for two-engined aeroplanes without an ETOPS approval,
aircraft used for non-commercial operations).
EASA FORM 139 Issue 2()
3.1.3. Part-CAT
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 21 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
3. Proposed amendments
CAT.OP.MPA.303 In-flight check of the landing distance at the time of arrival aeroplanes
(a) For performance class A aeroplanes, no approach to land shall be continued unless the landing
distance available (LDA) is at least 115 % of the landing distance at the estimated time of landing
on the intended runway, determined in accordance with the approved landing distance data at
the time of arrival for landing distance assessment.
(b) For performance class B aeroplanes, no approach to land shall be continued unless:
(1) the LDA is at least 115 % of the landing distance at the estimated time of landing on the
intended runway, determined in accordance with the approved landing distance data at
the time of arrival for landing distance assessment; or
(2) if approved landing distance data at the time of arrival for landing distance assessment are
not available, the LDA at the estimated time of landing on the intended runway is checked
to be at least the required landing distance determined in accordance with CAT.POL.A.330
or CAT.POL.A.335, as applicable.
(c) For performance class C aeroplanes, no approach to land shall be continued unless:
(1) the LDA is at least 115 % of the landing distance at the estimated time of landing on the
intended runway, determined in accordance with the approved landing distance data at
the time of arrival for landing distance assessment; or
(2) if approved landing distance data at the time of arrival for landing distance assessment are
not available, the LDA at the estimated time of landing on the intended runway is checked
to be at least the required landing distance determined in accordance with CAT.POL.A.430
or CAT.POL.A.435, as applicable.
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 22 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
3. Proposed amendments
CAT.POL.A.105 General
()
(d) For performance purposes, a damp runway, other than a grass runway, may be considered to be
dry.
(e) The operator shall take account of charting accuracy when assessing the take-off requirements
of the applicable chapters.
CAT.POL.A.200 General
(a) The approved performance data in the AFM shall be supplemented as necessary with other data
if the approved performance data in the AFM is insufficient in respect of items such as:
(1) accounting for reasonably expected adverse operating conditions such as take-off and
landing on contaminated runways; and
(2) consideration of engine failure in all flight phases.
(b) For wet and contaminated runways, performance data determined in accordance with
applicable standards on certification of large aeroplanes or equivalent shall be used.
(c) For the landing distance assessment at the time of arrival, data determined in accordance with
applicable standards on certification of large aeroplanes, or equivalent, shall be used.
(d) The use of other data referred to in (a) and equivalent requirements referred to in (b) and (c)
above shall be specified in the operations manual.
(i) the performance requirements at the expected landing mass are met; and
(ii) weather reports and/or forecasts and fieldrunway condition reports indicate that a
safe landing can be accomplished at the estimated time of landing.; and
(5) if the AFM does not contain en-route net flight path data, the gross OEI en-route flight
path shall be diminished by a climb gradient of 1.1 % for two-engined aeroplanes, 1.4 %
for three-engined aeroplanes, and 1.6 % for four-engined aeroplanes.
(d) The operator shall increase the width margins of (b) and (c) to 18.5 km (10 NM) if the
navigational accuracy does not meet at least required navigation performance 5 (RNP 5).
CAT.POL.A.220 En-route aeroplanes with three or more engines, two engines inoperative
(a) At no point along the intended track shall an aeroplane having three or more engines be more
than 90 minutes, with all engines operating at cruising power or thrust, as appropriate,at the all-
engines long range cruising speed at standard temperature in still air, away from an aerodrome
at which the performance requirements of CAT.POL.A.230 or CAT.POL.A.235(a) as applicable at
the expected landing mass are met, unless it complies with (b) to (f).
(b) The two-engines-inoperative en-route net flight path data shall allow the aeroplane to continue
the flight, in the expected meteorological conditions, from the point where two engines are
assumed to fail simultaneously to an aerodrome at which it is possible to land and come to a
complete stop when using the prescribed procedure for a landing with two engines inoperative.
The net flight path shall clear vertically, by at least 2 000 ft, all terrain and obstructions along the
route within 9.3 km (5 NM) on either side of the intended track. At altitudes and in
meteorological conditions requiring ice protection systems to be operable, the effect of their use
on the net flight path data shall be taken into account. If the navigational accuracy does not
meet at least RNP5, the operator shall increase the width margin given above to 18.5 km (10
NM).
(c) The two engines shall be assumed to fail at the most critical point of that portion of the route
where the aeroplane is more than 90 minutes, with all engines operating at cruising power or
thrust, as appropriate,at the all-engines long range cruising speed at standard temperature in
still air, away from anthe aerodrome specified in (a) aboveat which the performance
requirements applicable at the expected landing mass are met.
(d) The net flight path shall have a positive gradient at 1 500 ft above the aerodrome where the
landing is assumed to be made after the failure of two engines.
(e) Fuel jettisoning shall be permitted to an extent consistent with reaching the aerodrome with the
required fuel reserves of (f) below, if a safe procedure is used.
(f) The expected mass of the aeroplane at the point where the two engines are assumed to fail shall
not be less than that which would include sufficient fuel to proceed to an aerodrome where the
landing is assumed to be made, and to arrive there at least 1 500 ft directly over the landing area
and thereafter to fly level for 15 minutes at cruising power or thrust, as appropriate.
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 24 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
3. Proposed amendments
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 25 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
3. Proposed amendments
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 26 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
3. Proposed amendments
(123) additional conditions, if specified by the competent authority, taking into account
aeroplane type characteristics, orographic characteristics in the approach area, available
approach aids and missed approach/balked landing considerations.
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 27 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
3. Proposed amendments
(vii) the commander shall make the final decision to conduct reduced required landing
distance operations and may decide not to do so when they consider this to be in
the interest of safety; and
(viii) additional aerodrome conditions, if specified by the competent authority, taking
into account aeroplane type characteristics, orographic characteristics in the
approach area, available approach aids, missed-approach and balked-landing
considerations.
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 28 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
3. Proposed amendments
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 29 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
3. Proposed amendments
(iii) if the runway is forecasted to be wet at the expected time of arrival, the landing
distance at dispatch shall either be determined in accordance with
CAT.OP.MPA.303(b) or be at least 115 % of the landing distance required by
CAT.POL.A.330(b), whichever is longer; and
(iv) no forecasted adverse weather conditions exist at the expected time of arrival;
(7) operational procedures and instructions are established to ensure that:
(i) all the equipment affecting landing performance and landing distance is operative
before commencing the flight;
(ii) the deceleration devices are correctly used by the flight crew; and
(iii) landing on contaminated runways is prohibited;
(8) specific maintenance instructions and operational procedures are established for the
aeroplanes deceleration devices to enhance the reliability of these systems;
(9) the final approach and landing are conducted under visual meteorological conditions
(VMC) only; and
(10) additional aerodrome conditions, if specified by the competent authority.
CAT.POL.A.420 En-route aeroplanes with three or more engines, two engines inoperative
(a) At no point along the intended track shall an aeroplane having three or more engines be more
than 90 minutes, with all engines operating at cruising power or thrust, as appropriateat the all-
engines long range cruising speed at standard temperature in still air, away from an aerodrome
at which the performance requirements of CAT.POL.A.430, applicable at the expected landing
mass are met, unless it complies with (b) to (e).
(b) The two-engines-inoperative flight path shall permit the aeroplane to continue the flight, in the
expected meteorological conditions, clearing all obstacles within 9,3 km (5 NM) either side of the
intended track by a vertical interval of at least 2 000 ft, to an aerodrome at which the
performance requirements applicable at the expected landing mass are met.
(c) The two engines are assumed to fail at the most critical point of that portion of the route where
the aeroplane is more than 90 minutes, with all engines operating at cruising power or thrust, as
appropriateat the all-engines long range cruising speed at standard temperature in still air, away
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 30 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
3. Proposed amendments
from anthe aerodrome specified in (a) aboveat which the performance requirements applicable
at the expected landing mass are met.
(d) The expected mass of the aeroplane at the point where the two engines are assumed to fail shall
not be less than that which would include sufficient fuel to proceed to an aerodrome where the
landing is assumed to be made, and to arrive there at an altitude of a least 450 m (1 500 ft)
directly over the landing area and thereafter to fly level for 15 minutes at cruising power or
thrust, as appropriate.
(e) The available rate of climb of the aeroplane shall be taken to be 150 ft per minute less than that
specified.
(f) The width margins of (b) shall be increased to 18,5 km (10 NM) if the navigational accuracy does
not meet at least RNP5.
(g) Fuel jettisoning is permitted to an extent consistent with reaching the aerodrome with the
required fuel reserves as per (d) above, if a safe procedure is used.
CS 25.1591
Take-off Performance Information for Operations with Contaminated Runway Surface Conditions
(See AMC 25.1591)
(a) Supplementary take-off performance information applicable to aeroplanes operated on runways
contaminated with standing water, slush, snow or ice may be furnishedprovided at the
discretion of the applicant. If supplied, this information must include the expected performance
of the aeroplane during take-off and landing on hard-surfaced runways covered by these
contaminants. If information on any one or more of the above contaminated surfaces is not
supplied, the AFM must contain a statement prohibiting take-offoperation(s) on the
contaminated surface(s) for which information is not supplied. Additional information covering
operation on contaminated surfaces other than the above may be provided at the discretion of
the applicant.
(b) Performance information furnishedprovided by the applicant must be contained in the AFM. The
information may be used to assist operators in producing operational data and instructions for
use by their flight crews when operating with contaminated runway surface conditions. The
information may be established by calculation or by testing.
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 31 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
3. Proposed amendments
(c) The AFM must clearly indicate the conditions and the extent of applicability for each
contaminant used in establishing the contaminated runway performance information. It must
also state that actual conditions that are different from those used for establishing the
contaminated runway performance information may lead to different performance.
2. New CS 25.1592 is added:
CS-25.1592
Performance Information for Landing Distance Assessment
(See AMC 25.1592)
(a) Landing performance information applicable to aeroplanes operated on dry and wet runways
and supplementary landing performance information applicable to aeroplanes operated on
runways contaminated with standing water, slush, snow or ice must be provided by the
applicant.
(b) Performance information provided by the applicant must be contained in the aircraft flight
manual (AFM). The information may be used to assist operators in producing operational data
and instructions for use by their flight crews for performance assessment. The information may
be established by calculation or by testing.
(c) The landing distance to be used for landing performance assessment consists of the horizontal
distance from the point at which the main gear of the aeroplane is 50 ft above the landing
surface to the point where the aeroplane comes to a complete stop. It considers runway surface
conditions/braking action, winds, temperatures, average runway slope, pressure altitude, icing
condition, planned final-approach speed, aeroplane mass and configuration, and deceleration
devices used.
AMC 25.1591
The derivation and methodology of performance information for use when taking-off and landing
with contaminated runway surface conditions.
1.0 Purpose
This AMC provides information, guidelines, recommendations and acceptable means of
compliance for use by applicants in the production of performance information for aeroplanes
when operated ontaking off from runways that are contaminated by standing water, slush,
snow, ice or other contaminants.
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 32 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
3. Proposed amendments
()
4.0 Definitions
These definitions may be different to those used by other sources but are considered
appropriate for producing acceptable performance data, suitable for use in aeroplane
operations.The following definitions are a subset of the runway surface condition descriptors for
which a representative take-off performance model may be derived using the methods
contained in this AMC.
4.1 Standing Water
Water of a depth greater than 3mm. A surface condition where there is a layer of water of 3mm
or less is considered wet for which AMC 25.1591 is not applicable.
Note: a surface condition where there is a layer of water of 3 mm or less is considered wet, for
which AMC 25.1591 is not applicable.
4.2 Slush
Partly melted snow or ice with a high water content, from which water can readily flow, with an
assumed specific gravity of 0.85. Slush is normally a transient condition found only at
temperatures close to 0C.Snow that is so water-saturated that water will drain from it when a
handful is picked up or will splatter if stepped on forcefully.
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 33 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
3. Proposed amendments
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 34 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
3. Proposed amendments
Table 1
Note 1: Runways with water depths or slush or snow depths ofless than 3 mm or less are
considered wet, for which AMC 25.1591 is not applicable.
Note 2: Contaminant drag may be ignored.
Note 3: For conservatism the same landing gear displacement and impingement drag
methodology is used for wet snow as for slush.
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 35 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
3. Proposed amendments
Note 4: Where depths are given as zero it is assumed that the aeroplane is rolling on the surface
of the contaminant.
Note 5: No default model is proposed for specially prepared winter runways in this AMC. Such
surfaces are specific and treatment may be of variable effectiveness. The procedures and
methods should be approved by the competent authority of the state of operator.
()
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 36 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
3. Proposed amendments
Paragraph 7.1.4 gives the variation with speed, at and above VP, of drag coefficients
representing both fluid displacement and impingement.
The applicant may account for contaminant drag for computation of the deceleration
segment of the accelerate-stop distance. However, if the actual contaminant depth is less
than the reported value, then, using the reported value to determine contaminant drag
will result in a higher drag level than the one that actually exists, leading to a conservative
take-off distance and take-off run, but a potentially optimistic accelerate-stop distance. It
is assumed that these effects will offset each other; however, the applicant may consider:
either using 100 % of the reported contaminant depth when determining the
acceleration portion, and 50 % when considering the deceleration portion; or
using 50 % of the reported contaminant depth when determining both the
acceleration and the stop portion of the accelerate-stop distance. This will result in
a conservative computation of the resultant take-off distance without being unduly
penalising. The applicant should check to ensure that using drag for half of the
contaminant depth for the accelerate-stop computation is conservative for the
applicants aeroplane configuration.
7.1.1 Aquaplaning Speed
An aeroplane will aquaplane at high speed on a surface contaminated by standing water,
slush or wet snow. For the purposes of estimating the effect of aquaplaning on
contaminant drag, the aquaplaning speed, VP, is given by -
= 9
where VP is the ground speed in knots and P is the tyre pressure in lb/in2.
For the purpose of estimating the effect of aquaplaning on wheel-to-ground friction, the
aquaplaning speed VP given above should be factored with a coefficient of 0.85.
Predictions (Reference 5) indicate that the effect of running a wheel over a low density
liquid contaminant containing air, such as slush, is to compress it such that it essentially
acts as high density contaminant. This means that there is essentially no increase in
aquaplaning speed to be expected with such a lower density contaminant.
For this reason, the aquaplaning speed given here is not a function of the density of the
contaminant.
(See References 1, 5 and 10)
()
7.3 Braking Friction (All Contaminants)
On most contaminant surfaces the braking action of the aeroplane will be impaired.
Performance data showing these effects can be based on either the minimum
conservative default values, given in Table 2 or test evidence and assumed values (see
paragraph 7.3.2). In addition the applicant may optionally provide performance data as a
function of aeroplane braking coefficient or wheel braking coefficient.
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 37 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
3. Proposed amendments
Table 2
Note: For a specially prepared winter runway surface no default friction value can be given
due to the diversity of conditions that will apply.
(See reference 10)
()
7.3.3 Use of Ground Friction Measurement Devices
Ideally it would be preferable to relate aeroplane braking performance to a friction index
measured by a ground friction device that would be reported as part of a Surface
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 38 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
3. Proposed amendments
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 39 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
3. Proposed amendments
The landing distance must be presented either directly or with the factors required by the
operating manuals, with clear explanation where appropriate.
The applicant should provide crosswind guidance for operations on contaminated
runways.
Where data is provided for a range of contaminant depths, for example greater than 3, 6,
9, 12, 15mm, then the AFM should clearly indicate how to define data for contaminant
depths within the range of contaminant depths provided.
The AFM should provide:
the performance data for operations on contaminated runways;
definitions of runway surface conditions; and
the procedures and assumptions used to develop the performance data.
The AFM should state that operations are prohibited on runways with contaminant depths
greater than those for which data is provided. Instructions for use of the data should be
provided in the appropriate documentation.
Where the AFM presents data using VSTOP and VGO, it must be stated in the AFM that
use of this concept is acceptable only where operation under this standard is permitted.
9 References
Reference sources containing worked methods for the processes outlined in 7.1 to 7.3.3 are
identified below:
1. ESDU Data Item 83042, December 1983, with Amendment A, May 1998. Estimation of
Spray Patterns Generated from the Side of Aircraft Tyres Running in Water or Slush.
2. ESDU Data Item 98001, May 1998. Estimation of Airframe Skin -Friction Drag due to
Impingement of Tyre Spray.
3. ESDU Data Item 90035, November 1990, with Amendment A, October 1992. Frictional
and Retarding Forces on Aircraft Tyres. Part V: Estimation of Fluid Drag Forces.
4. ESDU Memorandum No.97, July 1998. The Order of Magnitude of Drag due to Forward
Spray from Aircraft Tyres.
5. ESDU Memorandum No. 96, February 1998. Operations on Surfaces Covered with Slush.
6. ESDU Memorandum No. 95, March 1997, Impact Forces Resulting From Wheel Generated
Spray: Re-Assessment Of Existing Data.
7. NASA Report TP-2718 Measurement of Flow Rate and Trajectory of Aircraft Tire -
Generated Water Spray.
8. Van Es, G.W.H., Method for Predicting the Rolling Resistance of Aircraft Tires in Dry
Snow. AIAA Journal of Aircraft, Volume 36, No.5, September -October 1999.
9. Van Es, G.W.H., Rolling Resistance of Aircraft Tires in Dry Snow, National Aerospace
Laboratory NLR, Technical Report TR-98165, Amsterdam, 1998.
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 40 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
3. Proposed amendments
10. ESDU Data Item 72008, May 1972. Frictional and retarding forces on aircraft tyres. Part
III: planning.
11. FAA AC 25-31, Takeoff Performance Data for Operations on Contaminated Runways,
22 December 2016.
12. ICAO Doc 10064, Aeroplane Performance Manual (to be published).
AMC 25.1592
The Derivation and Methodology of Performance Information for Landing Distance Assessment at
Dispatch and at Time of Arrival
1.0 Purpose
This AMC provides information, guidelines, recommendations and acceptable means of
compliance for use by applicants in the production of landing performance information. This
information is for use by operators:
before flight when planning to land on runways that are contaminated by standing water,
slush, snow, ice or other contaminants; and
at the time of arrival, whatever the runway surface condition is.
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 41 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
3. Proposed amendments
at which the main gear of the aeroplane is 50 ft above the landing surface to the position where
the aeroplane is brought to a stop. See Figure 1 below.
4.0 Definitions
In addition to those defined in AMC 25.1591 above, the following runway conditions should be
considered:
4.1 Frost
Ice crystals formed from airborne moisture on a surface whose temperature is below
freezing. Frost differs from ice in that frost crystals grow independently and, therefore,
have a more granular texture.
Note 1: below freezing refers to air temperature equal to or lower than the freezing point
of water (0 C).
Note 2: under certain conditions, frost can cause the surface to become very slippery,
which is then reported appropriately as reduced braking action.
4.2 Runway Condition Code (RWYCC)
A number describing the runway surface condition to be used in the runway condition
report. See Section 6.2 of this AMC for the classification of runway conditions.
Note: the purpose of RWYCC is to permit an operational aeroplane performance
calculation by the flight crew. Procedures for the determination of the runway condition
code are described in ICAO Doc 9981 PANS Aerodromes.
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 42 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
3. Proposed amendments
The landing distance for a time-of-arrival landing performance assessment may be determined
analytically from the landing performance model developed to show compliance with CS 25.125.
For the purposes of determining the landing distance for time-of-arrival assessments, the model
should be modified as described in the following sections.
Changes in the aeroplanes configuration, speed, power, and thrust used to determine the
landing distance for time-of-arrival landing performance assessments should be made using
procedures established for operation in service. These procedures should:
be able to be consistently executed in service by crews of average skill;
use methods or devices that are safe and reliable; and
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 43 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
3. Proposed amendments
include allowance for any time delays that may reasonably be expected in service (see
Section 6.2. below).
The procedures and assumptions used to develop the operational landing distances should be
documented in the AFM.
6.1 Air Distance
As shown in Figure 1 above, the air distance is the distance from a height of 50 ft above the
landing surface to the point of main gear touchdown. This definition of the air distance is
unchanged compared to that used for compliance with CS 25.125. However, the air distance
determined under CS 25.125 may not be appropriate for use when making time-of-arrival
landing performance assessments. The air distances determined under CS 25.125 may be shorter
than the distance that the average pilot is likely to achieve in normal operations.
The air distance used for any individual landing at any specific runway is a function of the
following parameters:
runway approach guidance;
runway slope;
use of any aeroplane features or equipment (e.g. heads-up guidance, autoflight systems,
etc.);
pilot technique; and
the inherent flare characteristics of the specific aeroplane.
Unless the air distance used for compliance with CS 25.125 is representative of an average pilot
flying in normal operations (see flight test demonstration below), the air distance used for time-
of-arrival landing performance assessments should be determined analytically as the distance
traversed over a time period of 7 sec at a speed of 98 % of the recommended speed over the
landing threshold, also referred to as the final-approach speed (VAPP). This represents a flare
time of 7 sec and a touchdown speed (VTD) of 96 % of the VAPP. The VAPP should be consistent
with the procedures recommended by the applicant, including any speed additives, such as
those that may be used for winds or icing. The effect of higher speeds, to account for variations
that occur in operations or are caused by the operating procedures of individual operators,
should also be provided.
If the air distance is determined directly from flight test data instead of using the analytical
method provided above, the flight test data should meet the following criteria:
procedures should be used that are consistent with the applicants recommended
procedures for operations in service; these procedures should address the recommended
final-approach airspeed, flare initiation height, thrust/power reduction height and
technique, and target pitch attitudes;
at a height of 50 ft above the runway surface, the aeroplane should be at an airspeed not
slower than the recommended final-approach airspeed; and
the touchdown rate of descent should be in the range of 14 ft per sec.
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 44 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
3. Proposed amendments
If the air distance is based on a time of 7 sec at a speed of 98 % of the recommended speed over
the runway threshold, this air distance is considered valid for downhill runway slopes up to 2 %
in magnitude (no credit should be taken for an uphill runway slope).
6.2 Transition Distance
As shown in Figure 1 above, the transition distance is the distance travelled from the point of
main gear touchdown to the point where all deceleration devices used for determining the
landing distance are operating. If the air distance is based on a time of 7 sec at a speed of 98 %
of the recommended speed over the runway threshold, the speed at the start of the transition
segment should be 96 % of the final approach speed.
The transition distance should be based on the recommended procedures for use of the
approved means of deceleration, both in terms of sequencing and of any cues for initiation.
Reasonably expected time delays should also be taken into account.
For procedures that call for initiation of deceleration devices beginning at nose gear touchdown,
the minimum time for each pilot action taken to deploy or activate a deceleration means should
be the demonstrated time, but not less than one second.
For procedures that call for initiation of deceleration devices beginning prior to nose gear
touchdown, the minimum time for each pilot action taken to deploy or activate a deceleration
means should be the demonstrated time plus one second.
For deceleration means that are automatically deployed or activated (e.g. auto speed brakes or
autobrakes), the demonstrated time may be used with no added delay time.
The distance of the transition segment, and the speed at the start of the final stopping
configuration segment should include the expected evolution of the braking force achieved over
the transition distance. The evolution of the braking force should take into account any
differences that may occur for different RWYCCs, such as the aeroplane transition to the full
braking configuration (see Table 1 below for the wheel braking coefficient of the full braking
configuration of each runway surface condition and pilot-reported braking action).
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 45 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
3. Proposed amendments
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 46 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
3. Proposed amendments
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 47 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
3. Proposed amendments
If the effect of contaminant depth is included in the landing distance data, then data should be
provided for the specific gravities shown in Table 2 below.
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 48 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
3. Proposed amendments
presented either directly or with the factors required by the operating manuals (OMs),
with a clear explanation, where appropriate.
Where data is provided for a range of contaminant depths, e.g. greater than 3, 6, 9, 12,
15 mm, then the AFM should clearly indicate how to define data for contaminant depths
within the range of the contaminant depths provided.
The AFM should provide:
the performance data for operations on contaminated runways;
definitions of runway surface conditions; and
the procedures and assumptions used to develop the performance data.
The AFM should state that operations are prohibited on runways with contaminant depths
greater than those for which data is provided. Instructions for use of the data should be
provided in the appropriate documentation.
9.0 References
1. FAA AC 25-32, Landing Performance Data for Time-of-Arrival Landing Performance
Assessments, 22 December 2015.
3.3.1. Definitions
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 49 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
3. Proposed amendments
3.3.2. Part-ORO
Subpart GEN General requirements
SECTION I GENERAL
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 50 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
3. Proposed amendments
3.3.3. Part-CAT
AMC1 CAT.OP.MPA.303(a) and (b)(1) and (c)(1) In-flight check of the landing distance at the time of
arrival aeroplanes
PERFORMANCE INFORMATION FOR LANDING DISTANCE ASSESSMENT AT THE TIME OF ARRIVAL
(a) Performance information for landing distance assessment at the time of arrival should be
developed in accordance with AMC 25.1592, or equivalent, and included in the operations
manual (OM).
(b) When the aircraft manufacturer does not provide the relevant data for performance class A
aeroplanes, performance information for landing distance assessment at the time of arrival may
be determined by applying the following methods:
(1) Correction factors may be applied to the certified landing distances on dry runway
published in the AFM for turbojet-powered aeroplanes and turbopropeller-powered
aeroplanes.
(2) For this purpose, the landing distance factors (LDFs) from Table 1 below may be used:
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 51 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
3. Proposed amendments
Table 1 LDFs
Runway
condition
6 5 4 3 2 1
code
(RWYCC)
Runway
Note 1 Note 1 Note 1 Note 1 Note 1 Note 1
description
Turbojet
without 1.67 2.6 2.8 3.2 4.0 5.1
reverse
Turbojet
with 1.67 2.2 2.3 2.5 2.9 3.4
reverse
Turboprop
(see 1.67 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.7 2.9
Note 2)
Note 1: runway descriptions may be found in the runway condition assessment matrix
(RCAM) for each RWYCC or braking action.
Note 2: these LDFs apply only to modern turboprops with efficient disking drag. For older
turboprops without adequate disking drag, use the Turbojet, No Reverse LDFs.
Note 3: the LDFs can apply to any type of anti-skid system, i.e. fully-modulating, quasi-
modulating or on-off system.
(3) To find the landing distance required (LDR) multiply the AFM (dry, unfactored) landing
distance by the applicable LDFs from Table 1 above for the runway conditions existing at
the time of arrival. If the AFM landing distances are presented as factored landing
distances, then that data needs to be adjusted to remove the applicable dispatch factors
applied to that data.
(4) The LDFs given in Table 1 above include a 15 % safety margin and an air distance
representative of normal operational practices. They account for variations of
temperature up to international standard atmosphere (ISA) + 20 C, runway slopes
between 2 % and +2 %, and an average approach speed increment of 5 up to 20 kt. They
may not be conservative for all configurations in case of unfavourable combinations of
these parameters.
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 52 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
3. Proposed amendments
GM1 CAT.OP.MPA.303 In-flight check of the landing distance at the time of arrival aeroplanes
TIMELINESS
The assessment is initially performed when landing weather and runway condition reports are
obtained, usually around top of descent. The assessment includes consideration of how much
deterioration in runway surface friction characteristics can be tolerated so that a quick decision is
made just prior to landing if the preceding aircraft provides a pilot advisory report of braking action
(AIREP) of worse than expected braking action.
RUNWAY CONDITION CONSIDERATIONS
When available for the portion of the runway that will be used for landing, the following elements are
considered:
(a) runway condition code (RWYCC);
(b) expected runway conditions (contaminant type and depth); and
(c) pilot advisory report of braking action (AIREP).
AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE CONSIDERATIONS
The following considerations may impact operational landing distance calculations:
(a) runway slope;
(b) aerodrome elevation;
(c) wind;
(d) temperature;
(e) aeroplane mass and configuration;
(f) approach speed at threshold;
(g) eventual adjustments to the landing distance, such as autoland; and
(h) planned use of aeroplane ground deceleration devices.
AUTOBRAKE USAGE
While autobrakes are a part of the aeroplanes landing configuration, the landing distance assessment
at the time of arrival is not intended to force a selection of a higher than reasonable autobrake level.
For operations when the runway is dry or wet grooved or with a porous friction course (PFC), if the
manual braking distance provides a 15 % safety margin, then the braking technique may include a
combination of autobrakes and manual braking even if the selected autobrake landing data does not
provide a 15 % safety margin.
ASSESSMENT BASED ON DISPATCH CRITERIA
When the runway is dry or wet grooved or with a PFC, the assessment of the landing distance at the
time of arrival may be done by confirming that the runway meets the criteria used for dispatch.
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 53 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
3. Proposed amendments
The required landing distance for dry runways determined in accordance with CAT.POL.A.230(a)
contains adequate margin to fulfil the intent of the time-of-arrival landing distance calculation on a dry
runway, which includes specific allowance for the additional parameters considered in that calculation.
When using wet runway dispatch applying the 15 % increase on the dry landing distance in accordance
with CAT.POL.A.235(a) to determine the required landing distance for a wet grooved surface or with a
PFC, there is adequate margin to cover eventualities considered in the time-of-arrival landing distance
calculation.
DOCUMENTATION AND TRAINING
The Operations Manual (OM) and training material should include the assumptions about and the
limitations on the use of the data provided for performing a landing distance assessment at the time-
of-arrival.
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 54 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
3. Proposed amendments
Table 1 Association between runway surface condition and RWYCC based on reported
contaminant type and depth and OAT
Runway surface Surface condition
Depth Notes RWYCC
condition descriptor
Including wet or contaminated
Dry N/a runways below 25 % coverage in 6
each runway third
Damp
(any visible 5
Wet
dampness)
Wet 3 mm or less 5
Slippery wet 3
At or below OAT 15 C 4
Compacted snow Any
Above OAT 15 C 3
3 mm or less 5
More than Including when any depth occurs
Dry snow 3 mm up to on top of compacted snow 3
100 mm
Any On top of ice 02
Frost1 Any 5
Ice Any In cold and dry conditions 1
3 mm or less 5
More than
Slush
3 mm up to 2
Contaminated
15 mm
3 mm or less 5
More than
Standing water 3 mm up to 2
15 mm
Any On top of ice 02
Wet ice Any 02
3 mm or less 5
More than Including when any depth occurs
Wet snow 3 mm up to on top of compacted snow 3
30 mm
Any On top of ice 02
Note 1: under certain conditions, frost may cause the surface to become very slippery.
Note 2: operations in conditions where less-than-poor braking action prevails are prohibited.
A primary assessment may have to be downgraded based on an AIREP of lower braking action than the
one typically associated with the type and depth of contaminant on the runway. The following table
shows the correlation between AIREP terminology and RWYCC.
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 55 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
3. Proposed amendments
Note 1: the aerodrome personnel may downgrade or upgrade the reported RWYCC based on the
friction coefficient (Mu) measured by a friction measuring device meeting standards set or agreed by
the state of aerodrome. Such a decision should not be taken by a flight crew on the approach as it must
be supported by all other observations. Measured friction values poorly correlate with actual aircraft
braking capability/landing performance.
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 56 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
3. Proposed amendments
aerodrome operator using the runway condition assessment matrix (RCAM) and associated procedures
defined in ICAO Doc 9981 PANS Aerodromes.
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 57 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
3. Proposed amendments
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 58 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
3. Proposed amendments
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 59 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
3. Proposed amendments
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 60 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
3. Proposed amendments
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 61 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
3. Proposed amendments
(c) The operator should ensure that no inexperienced flight crew members, as defined in
AMC1.ORO.FC.200(a), perform an approach and landing with reduced required landing distance
operations.
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 62 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
3. Proposed amendments
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 63 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
3. Proposed amendments
(b) The soil should be considered firm when there are wheel impressions but no rutting.
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 64 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
3. Proposed amendments
The competent authority may require further mitigating measures in addition to those proposed by the
operator.
AMC1 CAT.POL.A.355(b)(4) and (b)(5) Approval of reduced required landing distance operations
TYPE EXPERIENCE
The operator should specify in the operations manual (OM) the minimum pilots experience on the
aircraft type or class required to conduct such operations.
TRAINING PROGRAMME
(a) Initial training
(1) The aerodrome training programme shall include ground and flight training with a suitably
qualified instructor.
(2) Flight training should be carried out on the runway of the intended operations, and should
include a suitable number of:
(i) approaches and landings; and
(ii) missed approach/balked landings.
(3) When performing approaches and landings, particular emphasis should be placed on:
(i) stabilised approach criteria;
(ii) accuracy of flare and touchdown;
(iii) positive identification of the ground reference point controlling the touchdown
area; and
(iv) correct use of deceleration devices.
(4) These exercises should be conducted in accordance with the specific control procedure of
the touchdown area established by the operator, and should enable the flight crew to
identify the external visual references and the designated touchdown area.
(b) Recurrent training
The operator should ensure that in conjunction with the recurrent training and checking
programme required by Subpart FC of Annex III (Part-ORO) to Regulation (EU) No 965/2012, the
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 65 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
3. Proposed amendments
pilots knowledge and ability to perform the tasks associated with this particular operation, for
which the pilot is authorised by the operator, are verified.
RECENCY
The operator should define in the OM appropriate recent-experience requirements to ensure that the
pilots ability to perform an approach to and landing on the intended runway is maintained.
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 66 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
3. Proposed amendments
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 67 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
4. RIA
4. RIA
4.1. Issues to be addressed
General review of aeroplane performance requirements
A first attempt to review the operational requirements on aeroplane performance for CAT operations
with the purpose of harmonisation between US and EU rules was initiated by the Joint Aviation
Authorities (JAA)/Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC)
Performance Harmonisation Working Group (PERFHWG).
The recommendations of said working group were subsequently discussed by the JAA OPS
Performance Sub-Committee (PERFSC) and included in an NPA (NPA-OPS 47). Such NPA became the
input for EASA rulemaking task OPS.008 (former task number).
The main effects of the proposed changes were considered to be an improvement of clarity, technical
accuracy and flexibility for operators ,as well as harmonisation with the FAA rules.
A general consistency review of the aeroplane performance requirements in Subpart C AIRCRAFT
PERFORMANCE AND OPERATING LIMITATIONS of Part-CAT is also performed in this NPA.
A further need for coordination and a consistency check has been identified in eventual changes
proposed for aeroplane-performance-related rules by the following RMTs:
RMT.0379 All-weather operations (AWO), and
RMT.0570 Reduction of runway excursions.
ICAO amendments
However, it soon became evident that the number of issues and safety concerns to be addressed in the
field of aeroplane performance was larger.
Later on in fact, it was recognised that airworthiness standards and operating rules may not cover
adequately all conditions for take-off and landing performance, particularly in relation to runway
surface condition when the runway is wet or contaminated. This issue touches multiple domains of the
aviation regulatory framework such as Airworthiness (AW), Air Operations (Air OPS) and ADR.
For this reason, the FAA tasked the Takeoff and Landing Performance Assessment Advisory Rulemaking
Committee (TALPA ARC) to perform an exhaustive review of operations on contaminated runways.
TALPA ARC developed proposals along the three main directions of:
standards for runway condition reporting by aerodromes;
standards for aircraft manufacturers to produce data for operational landing performance
computation at the time of arrival; and
operational rules for aircraft operators.
Most of the TALPA ARC recommendations were endorsed by the European Action Plan for the
Prevention of Runway Excursions (EAPPRE), which, in particular, contained the following SRs to EASA:
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 68 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
4. RIA
3.7.1 Establish and implement one consistent method of contaminated runway surface
condition assessment and reporting by the aerodrome operator for use by aircraft operators.
Ensure the relation of this report to aircraft performance as published by aircraft manufacturers.
3.7.3 It is recommended that aircraft operators always conduct an in-flight assessment of the
landing performance prior to landing. Note: Apply an appropriate margin to these results.
Under the Research Project EASA.2008/4, EASA also published in 2010 a study on runway friction
characteristics measurement and aircraft braking (RuFAB), which endorses some of the TALPA ARC
recommendations.
Part of the TALPA ARC recommendations on certification aspects related to performance were also
initially considered by EASA in RMT MDM.069 Take-off and landing performance assessment, which
was then deleted from the EASA Rulemaking Programme to be included in the present RMT.
The TALPA ARC recommendations were also the basis for the following two draft Advisory Circulars
(ACs) published by the FAA in December 2015:
AC 25-32: Landing Performance Data for Time of Arrival Landing Performance Assessments. This
AC provides guidance and standardised methods that data providers, such as type certificate
(TC) holders, supplemental type certificate (STC) holders, applicants, and aeroplane operators,
can use when developing landing performance data for time-of-arrival landing performance
assessments for transport category aeroplanes. This AC also promotes the use of consistent
terminology for runway surface conditions used among data providers and FAA personnel.
AC 25-31: Takeoff Performance Data for Operations on Contaminated Runways. This AC is
equivalent to the above one but intended for developing take-off performance data.
The TALPA ARC recommendations have been endorsed as well by ICAO through the work of the
Friction Task Force (FTF). The result of this work were presented in ICAO State Letter 4/1.1.55-15/30,
issued in 2015, including a number of standards and recommended practices amending the following
annexes:
ICAO Annex 3 Meteorological Service for International Air Navigation;
ICAO Annex 6 Operation of Aircraft, Part I and Part II;
ICAO Annex 8 Airworthiness of Aircraft;
ICAO Annex 14 Aerodromes; and
ICAO Annex 15 Aeronautical Information Services;
as well as the following documents:
ICAO Doc 9981 PANS Aerodromes; and
ICAO Doc 4444 PANS ATM.
Such proposals were then adopted by the Council of ICAO in 2016.
This NPA addresses the following ICAO amendments:
assessment of performance at the time of landing (State Letter AN 11/1.3.29-16/12, ICAO
Annex 6, Part I Amendment 40);
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 69 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
4. RIA
reporting of degraded runway conditions by the flight crew (State Letter AN 11/1.3.29-16/12,
ICAO Annex 6, Part I Amendment 40); and
provision of distances at the time of landing in the OM (ICAO Annex 8, Part IIIB
Amendment 105).
The other amendments to ICAO Annexes will be addressed by a dedicated RMT in the context of ADR.
However, the content of the amendment to ICAO Annex 14 (State Latter AN 4/1.2.26-16/19), as a well
as that of Amendment 1 to the Procedures for Air Navigation Services Aerodromes in PANS-
Aerodromes, as well as Amendment 7 to PANS-ATM will be referenced in the present NPA.
In this context, the following SR to EASA:
UNKG-2008-076: The European Aviation Safety Agency should require operators to ensure that
flight crews are provided with guidance material on aircraft performance when operating on a
runway that is notified as may be slippery when wet, or has sections thereof notified as may be
slippery when wet
is also addressed.
Crosswind limitations
Furthermore, EASA has received the following SR:
NORW-2011-011: The Accident Investigation Board Norway (AIBN) recommends that FAA, EASA
and the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) Norway evaluate the airlines' crosswind limits in relation to
friction values and consider whether they should be subject to separate approval by the
authorities;
and a similar SR in EAPPRE:
3.7.2 Establish and implement one consistent method of calculation of crosswind limits for use
by aircraft manufacturers and aircraft operators.
Guidance on crosswind limitations has been already produced by EASA in the Safety Information
Bulletin (SIB) No 2014-20 but, based on the above SRs, further assessment and regulatory
developments are necessary.
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 70 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
4. RIA
A similar proposal, but for performance class B aeroplanes, was submitted to EASA in 2015 by the
Direction Gnrale de lAviation Civile (DGAC) France. The drivers of this proposal are however
different as in this case, the possibility to use an increased landing factor of 80 % of the LDA is
restricted to specific aerodromes where a public interest exists. The safety justification of the proposal
is based on a risk assessment that defines a number of mitigating measures tailored to the
characteristics of the types in use in order to attain a level of safety equivalent to that of the current
rules.
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 71 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
4. RIA
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 72 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
4. RIA
5
Number of aircraft
0
2 251 to 5 700 Kg 27 001 to 272 000 Kg 5 701 to 27 000 Kg
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 73 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
4. RIA
In order to address these issues, further to an accident occurred to a 737-700, the FAA tasked in 2007
the TALPA ARC with an exhaustive review of safety issues of operations on contaminated runways. This
working group was composed of a wide range of stakeholders such as aviation authorities, air
operators, aerodrome operators, aeroplane manufacturers and various associations.
In 2009, the TALPA ARC submitted to the FAA its proposals which were oriented along the following
three main axes:
standards for runway condition reporting by aerodromes (in FAR 139);
definition of the operational landing performance computation (in FAR 25); and
operational rules for transport category aeroplanes (in FAR 121).
In the period 20102011, field trials were conducted with volunteering aerodromes and operators to
validate a crucial element of the proposals, the RCAM.
The FAA has then taken the approach of implementing the proposals of the TALPA ARC in a series of
ACs, as well as other guidance and policy documents that allow the various stakeholders to apply them
on a voluntary basis.
However, several aircraft manufacturers and States have already adopted significant elements of the
TALPA ARC work in their operational documentation and reporting systems.
The TALPA ARC proposals have been also endorsed by ICAO that, as mentioned above, through the
work of the FTF, addressed the following three issues of interest for this NPA:
(a) Standards for runway surface condition assessment and reporting
In ICAO Annex 6 (Section 4.4.2.1) pilots are required to issue the runway braking action special
air report (AIREP) when the runway braking action encountered is not as good as reported.
(b) Airworthiness standards for landing performance computation at the time of arrival
In ICAO Annex 8 (Section 2.2.7.1(f)), manufacturers are required to provide in the AFM landing
performance data for the time of landing.
(c) In-flight assessment of landing performance at the time of arrival
In ICAO Annex 6 (Section 4.4.11) pilots are required to assess landing performance at the time of
arrival against the latest runway surface condition information available.
These changes are considered in this NPA along with other relevant elements from other ICAO
annexes and documents.
Said assessment addresses SRs 3.7.1 and 3.7.3 of EAPPRE as well as UNKG-2008-076.
Crosswind limitations
The establishment, the understanding and the correct application of crosswind limitations, also in
relation to runway surface conditions, have a significant safety relevance as crosswind has a major
impact on directional stability.
Crosswind is recognised as an important causal factor in runway excursions.
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 74 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
4. RIA
The AIBN, in its Report SL 2011/10, performed a systematic analysis of 30 reports of accidents and
incidents related to operations on contaminated and slippery runways over a 10-year period, and in 19
of those accidents/incidents, a correlation with the presence of crosswind was found.
The safety relevance of crosswind limitations was also recognised in EAPPRE (SR 3.7.2).
This assessment addresses EAPPRE SR 3.7.2 and SR NORW-2011-011.
A study on crosswind (Research Project EASA.2011/08 NGW Near-Ground Wind Gust Detection)
was commissioned by EASA and carried out by the National Aerospace Laboratory of the Netherlands
(NLR). This study showed that a crosswind or tailwind component was a causal factor in a significant
number of occurrences investigated since 1990 and involving CS-25-certified aeroplanes operated in
CAT. These occurrences typically resulted in wingtip strikes, tail strikes, hard landings and runway
excursions. The wind in these occurrences was frequently accompanied by gusty conditions. The
analysis of existing practices revealed several issues:
demonstrated values of crosswind limits of different aircraft types cannot be compared with
each other as different ways of wind determination during the flight tests may be used;
for most commercial aircraft designed since 1950, no hard crosswind limits were established
during certification flight testing;
for the vast majority of commercial aircraft designed since 1950, gust is not mentioned in the
demonstrated crosswind;
there is currently no common industry standard on how to derive advisory crosswind values for
non-dry runway conditions;
most but not all operators surveyed for this study used hard crosswind limits;
not all operators consider gusts when evaluating crosswind limits; and
there is no generally accepted way of decomposing reported wind gusts into crosswind and
tailwind components.
Based on the above conclusions, EASA issued SIB No 2014-20 to raise awareness on the risks associated
with operations in strong and/or gusty crosswind conditions and to provide guidance to
manufacturers, operators and training organisations.
The current EU rules on Air OPS, namely Part-CAT, are requiring operators to publish wind limitations
in their OM, but no specific guidance is provided on how this limitations should be developed for
crosswind, nor it is defined how to establish a correlation between crosswind and runway surface
conditions.
Having regard to EAPPRE SR 3.7.2, the RG considered the possibility to develop a standardised
methodology for the calculation of crosswind limits; however, it was recognised that a similar action is
already under consideration by the FTHWG.
Furthermore, one of the conclusions of Research Project EASA.2011/08 NGW Near-Ground Wind
Gust Detection indicated that the need for harmonisation among manufacturers of the methodology
for determining crosswind limits is at the level of flight testing.
The RG concluded that regulatory material for the development of such methodology is beyond the
scope of this RMT and that this issue is more appropriately addressed by the FTHWG.
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 75 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
4. RIA
Reduced required landing distance operations for performance class A and B aeroplanes
The possibility to introduce flexibility into the methodology used to determine the landing distance is
advocated by certain stakeholders.
The current EU rules, namely CAT.POL.A.230, require to determine the landing mass of the aeroplane
in a way that allows the aeroplane to come to a full stop within 60 % of the LDA for turbojet-powered
aeroplanes and within 70 % of the LDA for turbopropeller-powered aeroplanes, respectively.
The application of this factor to the landing distance is intended to provide an adequate safety margin
against landing overruns.
The business aviation community requested EASA to allow the use of an 80 % landing factor for
business aviation operations conducted with performance class A aeroplanes. The application of this
factor to the LDA results in a reduction of the required landing distance. The proposal is based on a rule
in force in the US regulatory framework under FAR.135 and 91K (eligible on-demand operations) and is
substantiated by a study which defines a number of risk-mitigating conditions in order to attain a level
of safety equivalent to that of the current rule. The adoption of this regulatory proposal would allow
more flexibility for the above-mentioned business operators, facilitate the access to certain regional
aerodromes and, according to EBAA, eliminate a competitive disadvantage for European operators.
DGAC France has submitted to EASA a similar proposal to allow the use of the 80 % landing factor for
the operation of performance class B aeroplanes. In this case, however, the reasons are different as
these operations would be limited to specific aerodromes where the state of the aerodrome has
determined a public interest (e.g. remote or isolated areas with reduced or no availability of other
transport modes, aerodromes with short runways that cannot be extended, aeromedical services, etc.),
and an operational necessity exist. This proposal is also based on a set of mitigating measures.
The driver for the consideration of the issue in this NPA is, therefore, not safety but rather flexibility
and proportionality of the rules; however, it should be noted that a safety risk is introduced if an 80 %
landing factor is allowed without establishing appropriate mitigating measures to attain a level of
safety equivalent to that originally attained through CAT.POL.A.230 and CAT.POL.A.330.
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 76 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
4. RIA
CAs are also affected as the authorities responsible for the oversight and approvals related to
aeroplane performance.
Aeroplane manufacturers are also affected as they have to provide the necessary performance data to
operators.
4.2. Objectives
The overall objectives of the EASA system are defined in Article 2 of the Basic Regulation. This proposal
will contribute to the achievement of the overall objectives by addressing the issues outlined in
Chapter 2 of this NPA.
The general objective of this proposal is to maintain a uniform and high level of safety with cost-
efficient rules.
The specific objectives of this proposal are to:
reduce the number of accidents and serious incidents where aeroplane performance is a causal
factor;
provide improved clarity, technical accuracy, flexibility or a combination of these benefits for the
EU operational requirements on aeroplane performance for CAT operations; and
contribute to the harmonisation of FAA and EU operational requirements on aeroplane
performance for CAT operations.
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 77 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
4. RIA
different sets being in accordance with the new requirement of in-flight assessment of landing
performance.
However, this option was discarded for the following reasons:
the review of dispatch criteria was outside the scope of the TALPA ARC and ICAO amendments;
it would lead to disharmonisation with the FAA; and
landing distances calculated using the criteria at dispatch are used in the certification process of
aeroplanes, therefore, the impact of this Option could not be estimated for most of the existing
types.
0 No change Baseline option (no change in rules; risks remain as outlined in the
issue analysis).
Reduced required landing distance operations for performance class A and B aeroplanes
For this issue, the following options have been identified:
Table 2 Selected policy options for the reduced required landing distance operations for
performance class A and B aeroplanes
0 No change Baseline option (no change in rules; risks remain as outlined in the
issue analysis).
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 78 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
4. RIA
6
Cessna 206 Soloy, Cessna 207 Soloy, Cessna 210 Centurion, Cessna 421 Turbo Conversion, Comp Air Aviation 10, Comp Air Aviation
12, Comp Air Aviation 9, Epic Aircraft LT/Dynasty, Gulfstream Aerospace Goose, Gulfstream Aerospace S-2T Turbo Tracker, Hawker
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 79 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
4. RIA
The following fleet figures were extracted on 1 February 2016. They include all aircraft in service or
temporarily stored in the fleet of EASA Member State (MS) operators used generally in CAT, or in
business/corporate/executive aviation.
Table 3 MTOW and seat capacity of the CAT fleet of European operators
Table 4 MTOW and seat capacity of the business aviation fleet of European operators
A survey on the awareness and voluntary implementation of the ICAO amendments was conducted by
EASA among stakeholders between mid-December 2015 and mid-February 2016. 73 stakeholders from
22 countries responded, amongst which: national aviation authorities (NAAs), air navigation service
(ANS) providers, aerodrome operators, business aviation aircraft operators, General Aviation
Manufacturers Association (GAMA) manufacturers and European Cockpit Association (ECA) pilots. The
survey is provided as an Appendix to this NPA (see Chapter 6 below).
Aerodrome information has been derived from Report No NLR-CR-2014-206 Safety Assessment Of
Landing Performance Factors Of Business Type Of Aircraft. The study is provided as an Appendix to this
NPA (see Chapter 6 below).
Traffic data for business aviation has been derived from Eurocontrols Briefing: Business Aviation in
Europe in 2012, STATFOR Briefing 167.
Furthermore, EASA conducted a safety analysis over a period of 5 years (20112015) to review the
accidents and serious incidents in which at least one of the following conditions was fulfilled:
aeroplane performance calculation was inadequate to the reported runway condition;
measurement and/or reporting of the runway condition was inaccurate; and
runway condition was a causal factor in an occurrence.
The analysis is provided as an Appendix to this NPA (see Chapter 6 below).
Beechcraft 18, Hawker Beechcraft Bonanza (turbine), Lancair Evolution, Lancair Propjet, Maule Aircraft 7, Pacific Aerospace Cresco,
Pacific Aerospace FU-24, and Partenavia P68.
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 80 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
4. RIA
Other specific data, as necessary for the purposes of this NPA, were provided to the RG by Airbus,
Embraer and IATA. Where necessary, the use of such data and their source are detailed in the
following Sections.
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 81 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
4. RIA
In the period 20112015, there were 29.9 million flights in Europe, which gives the following rates:
1 accident per 10 million flights; and
2.3 serious incidents per 10 million flights.
In the base scenario of EUROCONTROLs latest 7-year forecast (updated in February 2016), an average
traffic growth of 2.2 % per annum is predicted for Europe between 2015 and 2022. However, it should
be noted that this forecast is conservative, and that in the long term, the traffic growth is expected to
be higher.
The numbers of flights as well as the rates of accidents and serious incidents that may be expected if
no regulatory changes are introduced are the following:
The proposed changes are expected to prevent or mitigate the consequences of these potential
accidents or serious incidents.
Impact Rationale
Reduced required landing distance operations for performance class A and B aeroplanes
The driver for the proposed changes in the use of a reduced required landing distance for performance
class A and B aeroplanes under given conditions is flexibility and proportionality of the rules.
In order to avoid that a safety risk is introduced, appropriate mitigating measures are necessary to
attain a level of safety equivalent to that originally attained through CAT.POL.A.230 and
CAT.POL.A.330.
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 82 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
4. RIA
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 83 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
4. RIA
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 84 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
4. RIA
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 85 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
4. RIA
Flight crew A specific monitoring of the touchdown area aims to improve Runway
land the accuracy of the flare and touchdown performed by the excursion:
significantly flight crew. inability to make
outside the a stop within the
This monitoring may be based on the use of external
touchdown expected landing
references that already exist (e.g. taxiway) or that must be
criteria (zone distance
created (e.g. specific painting on the runway), beyond which a
or speed). requirement.
go-around is mandatory. If an efficient control of the
touchdown area is implemented, it may be considered that
there is no more inaccuracy in the air distance, and the safety
margin of 30 % may only be applied to the ground roll part.
Adequate go-around or balked landing instructions should be
established in the OM.
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 86 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
4. RIA
criteria but
Landing on contaminated runway is prohibited.
LDR
calculations
are incorrect
or no longer
valid.
Based on the above assessment, the RG recognised that most of the risks are adequately addressed
by the conditions defined for performance class A aeroplanes and, in addition to those, decided to
introduce requirements for:
the control of the touchdown area; and
operations in VMC only.
Overall, the RG considered that through the proposed conditions, the mitigating measures identified
for performance class B aeroplanes are implemented in order to achieve a level of safety equivalent
to that originally intended by CAT.POL.A.330.
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 87 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
4. RIA
Summary
Impact Rationale
Impact Rationale
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 88 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
4. RIA
Reduced required landing distance operations for performance class A and B aeroplanes
Impact Rationale
Impact Rationale
Reduced required landing distance operations for performance class A and B aeroplanes
Impact Rationale
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 89 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
4. RIA
Impact Rationale
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 90 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
4. RIA
Reduced required landing distance operations for performance class A and B aeroplanes
Impact Rationale
Impact Rationale
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 91 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
4. RIA
Reduced required landing distance operations for performance class A and B aeroplanes
Impact Rationale
Impact Rationale
This Option will leave the current situation unchanged, thus making
Option 0 5 EU rules non-aligned with ICAO SARPs once the changes adopted by
ICAO will enter into force. The impact is considered highly negative.
Reduced required landing distance operations for performance class A and B aeroplanes
Impact Rationale
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 92 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
4. RIA
Safety impact 0 4 0 0
Environmental
0 1 0 1
impact
Social impact 0 0 0 3
Economic
0 1 0 3
impact
GA and
proportionality 0 0 0 3
issues
Impact on
better
5 5 0 3
regulation and
harmonisation
Total 5 7 0 11
Based on this assessment, it is considered that the following options provide the best global positive
impact:
Option 1.
Reduced required landing distance operations for performance class A and B aeroplanes:
Option 1.
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 93 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
5. References
5. References
5.1. Affected regulations
Commission Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 of 5 October 2012 laying down technical requirements
and administrative procedures related to air operations pursuant to Regulation (EC)
No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 296, 25.10.2012, p. 1)
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 95 of 96
An agency of the European Union
European Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2016-11
6. Appendices
6. Appendices
Below documents are available for information only at the following address:
https://www.easa.europa.eu/document-library/notices-of-proposed-amendment/npa-2016-11
Report No NLR-CR-2014-206 Safety Assessment Of Landing Performance Factors Of Business
Type Of Aircraft, conducted by the National Aerospace Laboratory Air Transport Safety Institute
(NLR-ATSI)
EASA EU Survey on RMT.0296 (February 2016)
Runway Excursions (RE) analysis 20112015 Annex A: Safety data collection for RMT.0296
Review of aeroplane performance requirements for commercial air transport operations
TE.RPRO.00034-004 European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 96 of 96
An agency of the European Union